Brevity, Conciseness, and Compression in Roman Poetic Criticism and the Text of Gellius'

Noctes Atticae 19.9.10

Author(s): Amiel D. Vardi
Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Summer, 2000), pp. 291-298
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561985 .
Accessed: 21/06/2013 16:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:45:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BREVITY, CONCISENESS, AND COMPRESSION
IN ROMAN POETIC CRITICISM AND THE TEXT
OF GELLIUS' NOCTES ATTICAE 19.9.10

Amiel D. Vardi

Gellius reproduces in Noctes Atticae 19.9.10 four early Latin epi?

grams he reports to have been recited by his teacher Antonius Julianus,
on which he remarks:

quibus mundius, venustius, limatius, tersius Graecum Latinumve nihil

quicquam reperiri puto.

tersius Salmasius followed by most editors: persius Q, pessius Z, pressius Fy

Now that Salmasius' admiration for the Parisian Q and the whole 8
family has abated,1 there is no reason to prefer the emendation over the
reading of F and y, especially since the readings of both manuscripts of
the 8 family could easily have originated in PSSIVS. But Jacobus Gro-
novius, in his 1706 edition, objects to pressius on the grounds that the
idea of conciseness is not relevant in this context.2 A consideration of
both this reading and the emendation is therefore appropriate.
There is no other occurrence of tersus in Noctes Atticae, though
the word is quite a common literary term from the time of Quintil?
ian on. In his Institutio Oratoria it is used with reference to oratory
(12.10.20, 50), to elegy (10.1.93, tersus atque elegans), and to Horace's
advantage over Lucilius (10.1.94, tersus ac purus). It serves the younger
Pliny, again both for prose style (Ep. 2.3.1, 7.25.4) and for elegy (9.22.2,
tersum, molle, iucundum), and Porphyrio ascribes it to Horace's style
(ad Hor. S. 1.4.8, tersus atque eleganter). The meaning of the term seems
always to be that of "polished" or "refined" and is thus not much differ?
ent from limatus, which precedes it according to the vulgate reading in

iSee Marshall 1983, 179.

2Scornfully remarking on the paraphrase magis concisum in J. Proust's edition
(Paris, 1681): "quasi illud quoque requireretur aut de eo ageretur."
American
Journal 121(2000)
ofPhilology ? 2000
291-298 byTheJohns Press
University
Hopkins

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:45:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
292 AMIEL D. VARDI

NA 19.9.10. The combination limatius, tersius would thus be somewhat

pleonastic, but such coupling of synonyms is not alien to Gellius' style,3
and the combination tersum ac limatum is also found in Quintilian (Inst.
12.10.50). The reading limatius, tersius in the Gellian passage therefore
has no obvious lexical deficiencies, and xipressius had failed to satisfy, it
would indeed have been a happy emendation.
Pressus is an older stylistic term, commonly employed in rhetori?
cal discussions by Cicero, the younger Seneca, Quintilian, the younger
Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius. In this context it normally serves, side by
side with brevis, as a Latin equivalent for auviojiog, to designate the
virtus dicendi of brevity, which was added to the Theophrastean dpexai
Xe^ecog by the Stoics but, except in narratio, not always favored by
rhetoricians with a taste for the grand style, especially Cicero and his
admirers.4 The term is coupled with limatus by Cicero (Brut. 35, Orat.
20) and Quintilian (Inst. 2.8.4, 11.1.3 twice), with reference to the ge?
nus subtile or the Atticist style. It serves Gellius in three other places
(1.3.21, 2.6.5, 10.6.2), all in the adverbial comparative form pressius but
not in the sense "concise," which would be its meaning in 19.9.10.5 With
reference to poetry, pressus is found in this sense in Quintilian (Inst.
10.1.46, on Homer's style; 12.10.38, an advantage of the Greek language
over Latin), and Silius Italicus employs the metaphor pressis metis,
taken from chariot racing, with reference to epic narrative and corre-
sponding to breviter... revolvere (Pun. 8.48).
Terminology apart, the demand for brevity in poetic texts is quite
common, and precedes that in rhetorical theory.6 In Roman poetic the?
ory it is emphasized by Horace, both in Ars Poetica (25, 335-37) and in
his criticism of Lucilius (S. 1.4.11-13, 1.10.50-51).7 Whereas in the pas?
sages from Ars Poetica Horace and the Hellenistic doctrines he follows8

3See Holford-Strevens 1988, 42.

4For brevity as a virtus narrationis see, e.g., Rhet. Her. 1.14; Cic. Inv. 1.28, De Orat.
2.326, Orat. 122; Quint. Inst. 4.2.40-47; for objections to it, "Long." 42.1; Cic. Brut. 50;
Plin. Ep. 1.20. See further Stroux 1912, 39, 51-54, 85-86 et passim; and for later periods,
Curtius 1973, 487-94.1 believe this would also be the meaning of pressus in some of the
examples listed in the OLD s.v. for the sense "moderate," "restrained."
5Its meanings are "with greater precision" in 1.3.21 ([Theophrastus] inquisitius...
et exactius pressiusque quam Cicero); "more intensively" in 2.6.5 ("taxare" pressius cre-
briusque est quam "tangere"), and "tighter" in the physical sense in 10.6.2.
6See, e.g., Pind. Nem. 4.33-34, Isth. 1.62.
^Cf. Quint. Inst 10.1.94;Juv. 1.4-6.
8Cf. Phld. Po. 5, cols. vi.12-vn.20, xxx.7-32, xxxi.10-25, xxxn.28-33 Mangoni.

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:45:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BREVITY, CONCISENESS, AND COMPRESSION 293

seem to adopt the rhetorical virtutes dicendi to poetry,9 the metaphor of

the muddy stream (flueret lutulentus) used in his Sermones suggests de-
pendence on a completely different tradition, that of the poetic ideal of
Xejcxoc; and Callimachus' Hymn to Apollo, already evoked in Catullus'
poem 95.10 This fortuitous coincidence of rhetorical and Callimachean
doctrines, often also formulated in the same terminology,11 continues to
obfuscate the theoretical background of Roman discussions of brevity.
Quintilian, for instance, understands Horace's criticism of Lucilius as
referring to the need to write nothing that can be done without (Inst.
10.1.94, esse aliquid quod tollere possis putat). This is the way rhetori?
cians conceive the requirement for brevity in narratio (Cic. Inv. 128, non
plures quam necesse est; Quint. Inst. 4.2.43, ne plus dicatur quam opor-
teat). But the same notion of brevity also serves Martial in defending his
epigrams: non sunt longa quibus nihil est quod demere possis (2.77.6).
Similarly, in Pliny's letter 1.20 to Tacitus brevity in prose style is
strongly objected to, and the very bulk of a book is considered com-
mendatory: bonus Iiber melior est quisque quo maior (? 4). This, in a po?
etic context, would look like a downright rejection of Callimachean
ideas. But Pliny has no such views concerning poetry and is quite proud
of his occasional trifling with a carmen argutum et breve (Ep. 7.9.9). On
the other hand, when Pliny describes the tone of his hendecasyllables as
modo pressius modo elatius (Ep. 4.14.3), he appears to be applying the
rhetorical doctrine of the plain and grand styles to his poetry.
But in spite of the resemblance, the demands for brevity and con-
ciseness in rhetorical theory, Callimachean poetics and ancient theory
of epigram are not altogether identical. In rhetoric the call for brevity is
grounded in both practical and aesthetic considerations. It is first nec?
essary in order to keep within allotted time limits, to maintain the at?
tention of the audience, or to ensure the intelligibility of the message.
Aesthetic standards are added mainly when the quality is discussed as a
characteristic trait of the plain style or of Atticist oratory, and focus es?
pecially on the demand to avoid overornamentation. Brevitas in rheto-

9See Brink 1963, 61-74; Asmis 1995, 168 n. 68.

10Cal.Ap. 108-9: Aoovqiov Jioxa^ioio uiyas poog, dXXdxd jtoM.d / Muma yf\c,
xai jioXXov?(()'vbaxi ovq^exov etatei; cf. Hor. 5. 1.10.36-38; Prop. 3.3.15; and see Puelma
Piwonka 1949, 159-64; Brink 1963, 159 n. 3; Clausen 1964, 188-89; and further bibliogra?
phy in Traill 1998, 222.
11Cf., e.g., the use of tenuis and gracilis both as indicators of Callimachean ideals
and in rhetorical discussions of the plain style.

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:45:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
294 AMIEL D. VARDI

ric thus refers both to the overall length of the work and to its concise
manner of expression. Callimachean poetics too has to do both with the
length of poems, preferring short pieces to long ones, and with their
style, the demand to eliminate the superfluous appertaining to the ideal
of polish and refinement.12 But here there are no practical considera?
tions involved, and both ideals are purely aesthetic.
Since in NA 19.9 the term pressus, if accepted, would apply to epi?
grams, we should also inquire into the relation of the criteria of brevity
and conciseness to this particular genre. Epigram was often singled out
as particularly in harmony with Callimachean poetic standards, the
small number of verses in poems of that genre being one of its distinc-
tive features, differentiating it from similar but longer poetic forms such
as elegy.13 Though in some sepulchral epigrams the demand for brevity
is explained by practical reasons, such as the size of the tombstone, the
price of engraving, or the need to ensure the attention of the wayfarer
for the minimal time possible, it is clear that in the case of literary
epigrams brevity was sought as a purely aesthetic value, as is demon?
strated, for example, by Martial 8.29.1: Disticha qui scribit, puto, vult
brevitate placere.14 It appears, furthermore, that a taste for extra-short
epigrams developed in the first century c.E. regarding the single distich
as the ideal form of such pieces. It is with this taste, as M. Lausberg ar?
gues, that Martial vies in his epigrams, defending his longer pieces by
setting conciseness against brevity, as in verse 2.77.6 discussed above.15
It may also be inferred from the epigrams themselves, though not from
any explicit metapoetic remark in antiquity, that in the case of this
genre "conciseness" refers not only to the saying of an idea in the few-
est words possible but also to the ability to compress into these few
words much more than what they actually say. This quality is especially
noticeable in sepulchral and erotic epigrams, with their aspiration to
evoke feelings of very high intensity in pieces of very small compass. It

12See Cameron 1995, 354-58 (and 136-37 for the connection between Cal. Ap.
108-9 and [oXJiyooTixogin Aet. 1.1.9).
l3For example AP 9.342; Ps.-Plut. Vit. Hom. 215; Sid. Apoll. Car. 23 praef. 6, Ep.
8.11.7. Conciseness is also a mark of urbanitas according to Domitius Marsus' definition
(Quint. Inst. 6.3.104; cf. 6.3.45), which might have used epigram as a model; see Ramage
1959, 250-55.
14Cf.Mart. 9.50, 10.59.
^Lausberg 1983, 41-51; cf. AP 4.2.6-7, 6.327, 9.369; Mart. 1.110, 2.77, 3.83, 6.65,
8.29, 10.59.

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:45:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BREVITY, CONCISENESS, AND COMPRESSION 295

is also characteristic of aphorisms, as noted by Demetrius (Eloc. 9, eoxi

ydp xai djco^Oey^iaxixov f\ ppax^xrig xai yvoo^ioXoyixov, xai aocjxDTe-
qov xo ev oXiycp jcoMfjv didvoiav f|0Qota0ai, xaOdjcep ev xotg ajcep^ia-
aiv SevSpoov otaov Suvdjieig).16 The notion of compression is among
the primary denotations oipressus11 and seems more appropriate to the
epigrams cited by Julianus, which are not very concise but loaded with
intensive emotions.
In Noctes Atticae the standard of brevity is called upon in a num?
ber of discussions of a distinct rhetorical background18 and counted
among the merits of some utterances in which conciseness is tradition-
ally sought, such as definitions (1.25.3), legal formulations (20.1.4), and
philosophical arguments (16.1.1, 17.20.4).19 Gellius also ascribes it to a
sententia of Favorinus (9.8.3), and I suspect that his praise of Euripides'
Hecuba 293-95 for brevity in 11.4.1 again derives from regarding the
passage as an aphorism. In chapter 19.11 he also applies the standard to
epigram and praises a "Platonic" distich (= AP 5.78) for its venustis-
sima brevitas. As in MartiaPs brevitate placere, here too the attribute ve-
nustissima, which carries connotations of charm and pleasure with no
practical gain, reveals the essentially aesthetic quality of the standard
evoked.20 Though the epigrams cited in 19.9 are somewhat longer, com-
prising two to three distichs each, we may, I believe, infer from the ap?
plication of the standard in chapter 19.11 that (pace Gronovius) con?
ciseness and compression were numbered among Gellius' expectations
from epigrams.

16Cf.Rhet. Her. 4.24; Hor. Ars 335-37.

17OLD s.v. pressus1 3. See, e.g., Sen. Ep. 59.5, pressa sunt omnia et rei aptata; lo-
queris quantum vis et plus significas quam loqueris.
18In10.3.5 and 15 C. Gracchus' brevity is contrasted with the copious style of Cic?
ero, with an overt preference for the latter's ubertas against the gracilitas of the former
(cf. Plin. Ep. 1.20.4). Sallust is assigned his traditional merit and dubbed brevitatis artifex
(3.1.6), and like Quintilian, Gellius too regards brevity as one of the advantages of the
Greek language over Latin (11.16.1). The fault Favorinus is made to find with the repeti?
tion of synonymous words in 13.25 is based on a dislike of ornament that contributes
nothing to the sense or effect, as is probably also the case with a similar line of criticism
in Fronto's comparison of the proems of Lucan and Apollonius, which is meant to cavil
at the style of Seneca and the Modernists {De Orat. 4-7, pp. 154-56 v.d.Hout2).
19Forthe standard applied to definitions cf. Rhet. Her. 4.35.
20For venustas applied to epigram cf. Plin. Ep. 4.18.2; for x?QL5and conciseness,
Dem. Eloc. 137; see further in Lausberg 1983, 61-63. For the connotations of venustas for
Gellius cf. its employment for the delights of Herodes' villa (1.2.2) and for the nonpracti-
cal function of women's breasts (12.1.7).

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:45:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
296 AMIEL D. VARDI

Finally, we should also consider the implications of the reading

pressius within the context of Gellius' chapter. The professed intention
in chapter 19.9 is to establish Roman competence in producing erotic
poetry comparable to that of the Greeks. The epigrams cited by Julia-
nus are more specifically directed to counter Greek censure of some
Latin poets earlier in the chapter: Laevius inplicata et Hortensius in-
venusta et Cinna inlepida et Memmius dura ac deinceps omnes rudia fe-
cerunt atque absona (? 7). The terms used in this criticism evoke the
Callimachean standards of light verse, refinement and sophistication,
appropriate in considering Roman neoteric poetry and so are also the
first terms in Gellius' praise of the earlier epigrams he produces: mun-
dius, venustius, limatius (? 10). If tersius is the correct reading of the
fourth term here, the correspondence with ? 7 is maintained, and Gel?
lius' claim for Roman competence would refer to poetic qualities which
Quintilian too regards as successfully mastered by his compatriots
(though in a different genre and epoch): Elegia quoque Graecos pro-
vocamus, cuius mihi tersus atque elegans maxime videtur auctor Tibullus
(Inst. 10.1.93). If, on the other hand, we take pressius to be the correct
reading, the correspondence with the critical terms used in ? 7 de-
creases. However, the quality of compression introduced befits not only
the epigrams cited by Julianus but also the epigrammatic poetry of Ca?
tullus and Calvus, whose works were partially exempted from the
Greeks' criticism.21 Elsewhere, Gellius regards brevitas among the ad?
vantages of the Greek language over Latin (11.16.1), a traditional view
shared also by Quintilian, for whom this deficiency is a good enough
reason to abandon any Roman attempt to vie with Greek achieve?
ment in one literary form: si tenuiora haec ac pressiora Graeci melius,
in eoque vincimur solo, et ideo in comoediis non contendimus (Inst.
12.10.38).22 The reading pressius thus makes Gellius' affirmation of Ro-

21Nisi Catullus... forte pauca et Calvus itidem pauca, ? 7. Gellius'

partiality to the
epigrams of Catullus is also discernible in 7.16.2, where he dubs Cat. 92 versus... omnium
meo quidem iudicio venustissimos (for the text see Holford-Strevens 1993, 295). For
Calvus' epigrammatic poetry see Courtney 1993, 201 and frr. 1-3, 17-18 (the same enu-
meration in Blansdorf, FPL).
22The inability of Latin to compete with Greek conciseness is treated here as part
of the egestas verborum of Latin, but the opposite view, that Latin is a more compact lan?
guage, is also attested, e.g., in Plut. Cat. Mai. 12.1\ Macr. Sat. 2.2.16 (based on NA 19.11).
It is often tempting to use Quintilian's Institutio as a direct subtext for Gellius (see, e.g.,
Marache 1952, 214). But though Gellius at times refers to authorities as late as the elder

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:45:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BREVITY, CONCISENESS, AND COMPRESSION 297

man competence more radical, pointing to archaic poets who did find
the way to overcome a deficiency inherent in their language, producing
compressed epigrams of high emotional intensity. Adherence to the
reading pressius may therefore have ideological implications over and
above its significance in the domains of textual criticism and Roman po?
etic standards.23

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

e-mail: AVardi@h2.hum.huji.ac.il

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asmis, Elizabeth. 1995. "Philodemus on Censorship, Moral Utility and Formal-

ism in Poetry." In Philodemus and Poetry, edited by Dirk Obbink, 148-77.
New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brink, Charles O. 1963. Horace on Poetry. Vol. I, Prolegomena to the Literary
Epistles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, Alan. 1995. Callimachus and His Critics. Princeton: Princeton Univer?
sity Press.
Clausen, Wendell. 1964. "Callimachus and Latin Poetry." GRBS 5:181-96.
Courtney, Edward, ed. 1993. The Fragmentary Latin Poets. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Curtius, Ernst R. 1973. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Trans?
lated by Willard R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Holford-Strevens, Leofranc A. 1988. Aulus Gellius. London: Duckworth.
-. 1993. "Analecta Gelliana." CQ, ser. 2, 43:292-97.
Lausberg, Marion. 1983. Das Einzeldistichon: Studien zum antiken Epigramm.
Munich: Fink.
Marache, Rene. 1952. La critique litteraire de langue latine et le developpement
du gout archai'sant au He siecle de notre ere. Rennes: Plihon.
Marshall, Peter K. 1983. "Gellius." In Texts and Transmission, edited by Leigh-
ton D. Reynolds, 176-80. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Pliny, Plutarch, and Suetonius, there is no explicit reference to Quintilian in NA, and we
cannot be sure whether views and terminology shared by the two result from direct ac-
quaintance or were picked up by Gellius from the general scholarly tradition of his day.
23I am grateful to M. Winterbottom and L. A. Holford-Strevens for their careful
reading of this essay and many helpful suggestions. The research involved in preparing
this essay was supported by The Israel Science Foundation founded by The Israel Acad?
emy of Science and Humanities.

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:45:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
298 AMIEL D. VARDI

Puelma Piwonka, Mario. 1949. Lucilius und Kallimachos. Frankfurt am Main:

Klostermann.
Ramage, Edwin S. 1959. "The De Urbanitate of Domitius Marsus." CP 54:250-55.
Stroux, Johannes. 1912. De Theophrasti Virtutibus Dicendi. Leipzig: Teubner.
Traill, David A. 1998. "Callimachus' Singing Sea (Hymn 2.106)." CP 93:215-22.

This content downloaded from 189.105.229.163 on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:45:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions